ORAC, with respect, I disagree - sadly this paragraph of mine:
I don't dispute the fact that it would be better if MASC came in the form of the E-2D, but given the current spending constraints, it seems unlikely that this would be procured anyway.
Somehow came adrift from the rest of the paragraph dealing with this point (presumably while cutting out bits of the blog post - I shall go and amend it) My contention, though, remains - namely that he has ignored the fact that the CVF
can be fitted with catapults, and indeed some rumours going around earlier in the year suggested that the F-35C might be bought, which would lead to the fitment of these items. Mr Lewis is being selective in his argument, since he wishes his readers to believe that the CVF is destined irrevocably to be without catapults.
His objection:
Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types
as I say, is not unreasonable, but he goes rather quiet upon 'variety' and focuses upon the Hawkeye. In effect, he is suggesting that the RN should procure a carrier with a launch system appropriate to an aircraft that it is doubtful we can afford to meet the MASC requirement...
Mr Lewis's view, therefore, takes little account of key realities - one of which, I suggest, is that his belief that the correct course of action would have been to base the (initial) decision regarding which version of the F-35 to procure upon the choice of the airframe for MASC- which seems somewhat arrse-about-face, IMO.